It was a response to the last post in the "Were Men Born Again Before Pentecost?" thread. The Bible does not say that Jesus preached to anyone in the "prison" except the disobedient ones who lived before the flood. I believe He was reprimanding those "sons of God", of Genesis chapters 5 and 6 who, though believers, disobeyed God, conformed to the world, and were participating in the "eating, drinking, marrying and giving in marriage".

6 minutes ago, Disciple.Luke said:

Are you saying that only the wicked dead before the flood went to the spirit prison, or just they are the only ones Christ went and preached to?

Please know I'm not being critical or trying to stump you. I'm just trying to understand what exactly the context is of your first post.

No, all of the wicked dead went to the other place: they went to Hell. (Luke 16:23-26)

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

It was a response to the last post in the "Were Men Born Again Before Pentecost?" thread. The Bible does not say that Jesus preached to anyone in the "prison" except the disobedient ones who lived before the flood. I believe He was reprimanding those "sons of God", of Genesis chapters 5 and 6 who, though believers, disobeyed God, conformed to the world, and were participating in the "eating, drinking, marrying and giving in marriage".

No, all of the wicked dead went to the other place: they went to Hell. (Luke 16:23-26)

I see. I didn't know your post was in reply to another thread topic. Thanks for the clarification.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

I hold the view that the spirits in prison ( 1 Peter 3:19 ) are sons of God of Genesis 6 which are the (fallen) angels that sinned of 2 Peter 2:4 " For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment; " as well as Jude 1:6

On ‎5‎/‎13‎/‎2017 at 7:59 AM, heartstrings said:

It was a response to the last post in the "Were Men Born Again Before Pentecost?" thread.

I haven't read that post but id say they weren't "born again" before Pentecost because that was when they were sealed with the Spirit. Which Jesus said in John 3:5-7 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.

So being born of the Spirit is the same as being born again - being born with the Spirit of adoption. There was no adoption in the OT. Plus there weren't even any Jews in Genesis 6 (which Israel as a nation is a son - Exodus 4:22 - but individual Jews are not sons of God) Adam was a direct creation so was a son (Luke 3:38) and angels as well are direct creations and are the sons of God in the OT. even they have freewill and chose to sin but are not eligible for salvation

Im not sure if I went off topic but im not sure was this thread was directly about. Wheres the thread that talks about this? Is there one? I'm new

Share on other sites

I hold the view that the spirits in prison ( 1 Peter 3:19 ) are sons of God of Genesis 6 which are the (fallen) angels that sinned of 2 Peter 2:4 " For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment; " as well as Jude 1:6

I haven't read that post but id say they weren't "born again" before Pentecost because that was when they were sealed with the Spirit. Which Jesus said in John 3:5-7 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.

So being born of the Spirit is the same as being born again - being born with the Spirit of adoption. There was no adoption in the OT. Plus there weren't even any Jews in Genesis 6 (which Israel as a nation is a son - Exodus 4:22 - but individual Jews are not sons of God) Adam was a direct creation so was a son (Luke 3:38) and angels as well are direct creations and are the sons of God in the OT. even they have freewill and chose to sin but are not eligible for salvation

Im not sure if I went off topic but im not sure was this thread was directly about. Wheres the thread that talks about this? Is there one? I'm new

I hold the view that all of the named individuals in Genesis 5, all direct ancestors in the line of Christ, including Adam, Enoch, and Noah are included in the "sons of God" mentioned in Genesis 6 and that they became so back in Genesis 4 when "men began to call upon the name of the Lord".(Genesis 4:26) I believe these "sons of God" "took them wives"(plural) from unbelievers and in doing so were disobedient The only exception to this,among them, was Enoch who was "translated" because he "walked with God"(definitely a believer by that account) and Noah who was "perfect in his generations" and "walked with God". The term "Sons of God" is a term which the Word of God directly defines. It only refers to "believers". (John 1:12, Romans 8:14, 1 John 3:1, 1 John 3:2) An "angel", however, is a different being entirely and things that are different are not the same. As pertaining to Adam's being a "direct creation of God"; that criteria is never used to define a "son of God" in the King James Bible. A "son" is an individual which was "begotten" by a father and "angels" do not and cannot meet that criteria. (Hebrews 1:5)

Another thing to consider about Adam; being that Adam was the "son of God", he would have been also included in "the sons of God" mentioned in Genesis 6 because it was happening when men "began" to multiply...........I'll stop right there. :)

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

I hold the view that all of the named individuals in Genesis 5, all direct ancestors in the line of Christ, including Adam, Enoch, and Noah are included in the "sons of God" mentioned in Genesis 6 and that they became so back in Genesis 4 when "men began to call upon the name of the Lord".(Genesis 4:26) I believe these "sons of God" "took them wives"(plural) from unbelievers and in doing so were disobedient

I respectfully disagree. I know brethren that don't take the angelic view which is fine, and its nothing important to debate about ( Hebrews 13:9 ) but it always catches my interest. - The problem is if the qualification for being a son of God is being obedient/calling upon the Lord then by the time Gen. 6:4 comes they are no longer sons of God. And how a regular man with a woman would begat a giant is beyond me. I read that literally a giant - is a giant - not just a "mighty warrior" or whatever else. I'm sure you've heard this before, so ill keep going...

Brother, its important to point out those are all NT verses. So yes in the NT it only refers to believers. But not the OT. John 1:12 for example does not line up with Genesis 4:26 because John 1:12 is the name of JESUS. Those in Gen 4:26 were not calling upon the name of Jesus, and were not sons of God. The other examples would be that there was no adoption in the OT. They were not sealed with the Spirit in the OT, very few even had the Spirit, it was mainly prophets and it would come and go.

15 hours ago, heartstrings said:

As pertaining to Adam's being a "direct creation of God"; that criteria is never used to define a "son of God" in the King James Bible. A "son" is an individual which was "begotten" by a father and "angels" do not and cannot meet that criteria. (Hebrews 1:5)

While I like that you base that off the bible, that's not what I see. Adam was a son of God - Luke 3:38 says so and Adam was not begotten - he was created. (Jesus was begotten but not created - big difference). So Adam was created and is a son of God - angels are created and are sons of God ( Job 38:6-7 ) God is Adam's Father as well angels (sons). As for Hebrews 1:5 no, no angels were begotten, I agree, they were created. That's why Jesus is the only begotten Son ( John 3:16 ) if regular men in the OT were begotten sons of God then that would contradict John 3:16 wouldn't it? Only begotten? God had a created son Adam (not begotten) God had angels had created sons of God (not begotten)

3 hours ago, heartstrings said:

About the "angels" ,named so in the Book of Jude, their sin was that they "despised dominion"; Not "going after strange flesh" or "defiling the flesh". The Sodomites did that.

Of course I looked at Jude and read this in v 5-8

" I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not. 6 And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day. 7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire. 8 Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities."

The text is comparing angels with sodomites. They both " likewise " defile the flesh and despise dominion etc. etc. Of course the angels in Gen 19 were not fallen, but Sodomites wanted to "know" the angels (whom look identical to man). Which didn't happen at that time. But it did happen with the angels which kept not their first estate in the pre-flood world and even after that when with the daughters of men producing giants. Divers and strange doctrine yes indeed ( Hebrews 13:9 ) but its what the Bible says

Share on other sites

I respectfully disagree. I know brethren that don't take the angelic view which is fine, and its nothing important to debate about ( Hebrews 13:9 ) but it always catches my interest. -The problem is if the qualification for being a son of God is being obedient/calling upon the Lord then by the time Gen. 6:4 comes they are no longer sons of God.And how a regular man with a woman would begat a giant is beyond me. I read that literally a giant - is a giant - not just a "mighty warrior" or whatever else. I'm sure you've heard this before, so ill keep going...

Brother, its important to point out those are all NT verses. So yes in the NT it only refers to believers. But not the OT. John 1:12 for example does not line up with Genesis 4:26 because John 1:12 is the name of JESUS. Those in Gen 4:26 were not calling upon the name of Jesus, and were not sons of God. The other examples would be that there was no adoption in the OT. They were not sealed with the Spirit in the OT, very few even had the Spirit, it was mainly prophets and it would come and go.

While I like that you base that off the bible, that's not what I see. Adam was a son of God - Luke 3:38 says so and Adam was not begotten - he was created. (Jesus was begotten but not created - big difference). So Adam was created and is a son of God - angels are created and are sons of God ( Job 38:6-7 ) God is Adam's Father as well angels (sons). As for Hebrews 1:5 no, no angels were begotten, I agree, they were created. That's why Jesus is the only begotten Son ( John 3:16 ) if regular men in the OT were begotten sons of God then that would contradict John 3:16 wouldn't it? Only begotten? God had a created son Adam (not begotten) God had angels had created sons of God (not begotten)

Of course I looked at Jude and read this in v 5-8

" I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not. 6 And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day. 7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire. 8 Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities."

The text is comparing angels with sodomites. They both " likewise " defile the flesh and despise dominion etc. etc. Of course the angels in Gen 19 were not fallen, but Sodomites wanted to "know" the angels (whom look identical to man). Which didn't happen at that time. But it did happen with the angels which kept not their first estate in the pre-flood world and even after that when with the daughters of men producing giants. Divers and strange doctrine yes indeed ( Hebrews 13:9 ) but its what the Bible says

I don't have a lot of time, right now, but I will address these two

. #1 Yes, they would have still been "sons of God" by Genesis 6:4. Their disobedience included marrying the daughters of men but this would not have revoked their sonship. It would have affected their fellowship. If it matters, you can check the ages and the timeline; only two of these men would have been alive when Noah began building the ark and only one(Methuselah) was alive in the year the flood came.. But Methuselah did not board the ark. He ,most likely, had been disobedient.

#2. If you will read that scripture more closely you will see that the "sons of God" did not beget the "giants". Those are two separate but related statements. It merely states that "there were giants", then goes on to tell about the sons of God, daughters of men, children etc. I believe the reason it mentions the "giants" is because the "sons of God" were conforming to the world as a reaction to their presence. The "sons of God" married "wives", lived hundreds of years(Genesis 5) and lived to see their families multiply into astronomical populations or "superpowers"(mighty men of renoun) which were great and powerful nations in a time in which the earth was "filled with violence". That was their disobedience. And the giants were merely very large, tall men as "Goliath of Gath" was. They were not angel human hybrids.

Link to post

Share on other sites

#3. The word "likewise", which you presented in bold text, means that the "filthy dreamers'' AKA ''certain men crept in unawares'', were doing all three sins; the sins of the angels, Sodomites, and Israelites. That is the context of the passage.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

. #1 Yes, they would have still been "sons of God" by Genesis 6:4. Their disobedience included marrying the daughters of men but this would not have revoked their sonship. It would have affected their fellowship

So to be clear, you believe the sons of Seth are sons of God - and sons of Cain are not?

- But If disobedience of sons of Seth did not effect sonship, only fellowship then that would be the same case for sons of Cain because you said disobedience does not effect sonship.

I don't mean to be overwhelming but yes Genesis 6 clearly says the giants resulted from the sons of God.

6:1 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,

There is only men that are mentioned in verse 1. - Daughters were born unto them; the men. (They are to be in distinction from "sons of God")

6:2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

Now it mentions the sons of God, that they saw the daughters they were born unto the men. The sons of God took the daughters of these men and made them wives. Where are either Seth or Cain mentioned? To place them in chapter 6 is assumption.

3 And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years. 4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

There were giants when the sons of God (sons of Seth???) came in unto the daughters of MEN, and they (daughters of the men) bare children unto them (sons of God). The giants were the children, that's when they were in the earth, resulting from the sons of God.

- So daughters are being born unto the men in verse 1 - then in verse 4 giants are being born unto the sons of God.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

There were giants when the sons of God (sons of Seth???) came in unto the daughters of MEN, and they (daughters of the men) bare children unto them (sons of God). The giants were the children, that's when they were in the earth, resulting from the sons of God.

- So daughters are being born unto the men in verse 1 - then in verse 4 giants are being born unto the sons of God.

The scripture doesn't say that.

It says there were giants on the earth in those days and after that the sons born to the them became mighty men.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Genesis 6:4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

There were giants before and after the flood. The giants are "the same" mighty men

Link to post

Share on other sites

Genesis 6:4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

There were giants before and after the flood. The giants are "the same" mighty men

Share on other sites

And how a regular man with a woman would begat a giant is beyond me. I read that literally a giant - is a giant - not just a "mighty warrior" or whatever else.

Sorry gotta pull you up on this one.

The Bible says:

Gen 6:4
(4) There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.
Notice that there were giants in the earth in those days; and ALSO AFTER THAT, when.....

The Giants were not the offspring of "the sons of God" and the "daughters of men", but were pre-existing that event. Those offspring became "Mighty men", "Men of renown", but there is no mention of them being giants.

As to Giants:

1Sa 17:4
(4) And there went out a champion out of the camp of the Philistines, named Goliath, of Gath, whose height was six cubits and a span.

In 1 Sam, 2 Sam, 1 Chron. Goliath and his brothers are referred to as sons of the giant.

A Giant is certainly referred to in the Bible as a large man, but not as anything more than a large man. Six cubits and a span is roughly ten feel tall, which is far taller than the average man today, but it is not far off what has been seen in modern times.

Robert Waldo was just shy of nine feet tall. (around 1940)

Look at Yao Ming, the Chinese basketballer standing next to Shaquille O'niell and tell me taht he is only 7'6" as stated - Shaq is 7'2" (I think) and is waaaaaay shorted than Yao Ming,

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

6 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,

2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

3 And theLordsaid, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.

4 There were giants in the earth in those days;

WHEN did men "begin to multiply"? Read Genesis chapters 4 and 5; Genesis 4, 5 and 6 go together. Now, notice that giants, in Genesis 6:4. are "in those days"? "Those days" are "when men began to multiply" in Genesis 4, 5 AND in the 120 years before God sent the flood. Now notice the term "and also after that". Did the giants cease to exist prior to the "when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men and they bare children........."? No. They were still there. So, what does "after that" mean? It means "subsequent to" or "as a consequence of" or "in imitation of" or "as a result of" like........

Genesis 1:11 ...."after his kind"

Genesis 1:26..."after our likeness"

The word "after" is also used in the word of God to express "later in time" but it cannot be so in this passage because the whole story encompasses "those days". The verse, Genesis 6:4, actually gives more description to Genesis chapter 5 and explains that "There were powerful, fierce, dangerous warriors in those days(giants) and as a consequence of or imitation or result of that,(after that) the "sons of God" (believers named in Genesis 5) begat sons and daughters for hundreds of years (Genesis 5)) and became very powerful politically (giving in marriage Matthew 24:38)), powerful in numbers (begatting sons and daughters) and became powerful militarily(mighty men). I believe it was the "sons of God" AND the offspring which became "mighty men of renown"; to me, the verse does not specify otherwise. That's all it is bro.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Thanks everyone for your comments. I just thought id share a few things, but as I said earlier, this topic is not worth debating ( Hebrews 13:9 ) Not everything I mentioned was even answered nor did I expect anyone must do so, id just rather have more of a fellowship than a debate. I'm sure theres enough of that.